DOCSLIB.ORG

Monthly Ridership Rpt Nov19.Xlsx

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monthly Ridership Rpt Nov19.Xlsx fs Ridership Report Current Month & Fiscal YTD Summary February 2019 Average Daily Boardings Monthly YTD Weekday Saturday Sunday Days 20 4 4 28 Bus 34,656 11,421 7,158 774,464 6,586,937 Full-Size Bus 32,847 11,421 7,158 731,245 Community Bus 1,031 20,614 SmaRT Ride 466 9,313 Folsom Service 313 6,269 Special Service* 7,023 Light Rail 36,580 14,697 10,770 836,605 7,021,990 Blue Line 18,783 7,318 5,756 427,956 Gold Line 17,481 7,379 5,014 399,192 Green Line 316 6,316 Special Service* 3,141 System Total 71,236 26,118 17,928 1,611,069 13,608,927 February 2019 KPI Comparison - Average Weekday Boardings Actual KPI Goal Difference Percent Difference Bus Avg Weekday 34,656 36,348 (1,692) -4.7% Rail Avg Weekday 36,580 32,861 3,719 11.3% Monthly Total 1,611,069 1,549,873 61,196 3.9% Total YTD 13,608,927 13,134,797 474,130 3.6% February 2018 Average Daily Boardings Monthly YTD Weekday Saturday Sunday Days 20 4 4 28 Bus 38,071 13,407 7,686 850,930 6,838,881 Full-Size Bus 37,232 13,407 7,686 Community Bus 839 Special Service* 5,133 Light Rail 35,490 12,800 10,100 810,692 7,199,174 Blue Line 16,400 6,900 5,700 Gold Line 18,700 5,900 4,400 Green Line 390 Golden 1 Service 9,292 System Total 73,561 26,207 17,786 1,661,622 14,038,055 % Change FY 2019/2018 Average Daily Boardings Monthly YTD Weekday Saturday Sunday Total Bus -9.0% -14.8% -6.9% -9.0% -3.7% Light Rail 3.1% 14.8% 6.6% 3.2% -2.5% System Total -3.2% -0.3% 0.8% -3.0% -3.1% Route Level Ridership Comparison (Fixed Route Bus) Weekday Route Comparison Saturday Route Comparison Route Feb 2019 Feb 2018 Difference % Change Route Feb 2019 Feb 2018 Difference % Change 1 1,725 2,156 (431) -20% 1 664 770 (106) -14% 2 408 422 (14) -3% 11 220 281 (61) -22% 3 186 184 1 1% 15 465 522 (58) -11% 5 200 195 5 2% 19 240 276 (35) -13% 6 293 323 (30) -9% 21 435 518 (84) -16% 7 118 120 (2) -2% 23 931 1,123 (192) -17% 11 615 658 (43) -6% 25 338 395 (58) -15% 13 255 326 (71) -22% 26 254 280 (26) -9% 15 1,028 1,131 (103) -9% 30 478 557 (78) -14% 19 582 640 (58) -9% 38 172 168 4 3% 21 912 1,061 (149) -14% 51 1,426 1,604 (178) -11% 22 223 256 (32) -13% 54 65 116 (52) -44% 23 1,400 1,639 (239) -15% 55 208 254 (45) -18% 24 137 163 (26) -16% 56 446 520 (74) -14% 25 892 955 (63) -7% 62 291 340 (49) -14% 26 992 1,116 (124) -11% 67 291 340 (49) -14% 28 305 334 (30) -9% 68 464 534 (70) -13% 29 99 113 (15) -13% 72 201 261 (61) -23% 30 1,895 1,920 (25) -1% 75 76 122 (46) -38% 33 237 210 27 13% 80 583 617 (33) -5% 34 249 282 (33) -12% 81 972 1,168 (196) -17% 38 381 386 (4) -1% 82 430 533 (103) -19% 47 79 129 (50) -39% 84 323 364 (41) -11% 51 2,867 3,337 (470) -14% 86 339 362 (24) -7% 54 251 286 (36) -13% 87 380 369 10 3% 55 672 686 (14) -2% 88 246 260 (14) -5% 56 930 1,042 (113) -11% 93 269 284 (15) -5% 61 452 511 (58) -11% 62 966 1,146 (181) -16% 65 364 395 (31) -8% Sunday Route Comparison 67 1,035 1,171 (136) -12% Route Feb 2019 Feb 2018 Difference % Change 68 1,052 1,169 (117) -10% 1 511 514 (4) -1% 72 961 1,015 (55) -5% 15 363 387 (24) -6% 74 164 197 (33) -17% 19 186 220 (34) -15% 75 163 168 (5) -3% 21 326 324 2 0% 80 821 933 (112) -12% 23 618 685 (66) -10% 81 2,422 2,496 (73) -3% 26 166 184 (18) -10% 82 1,617 1,784 (168) -9% 30 205 238 (33) -14% 84 671 755 (84) -11% 38 136 126 11 8% 85 51 969 1,001 (32) -3% 86 1,002 1,083 (82) -8% 55 119 153 (35) -23% 87 1,266 1,283 (17) -1% 56 269 293 (24) -8% 88 744 783 (39) -5% 67 411 413 (3) -1% 93 760 869 (110) -13% 68 389 470 (81) -17% 95 59 56 3 5% 72 148 191 (43) -22% 103 63 74 (11) -14% 75 70 96 (25) -26% 109 94 91 3 4% 80 435 463 (28) -6% 170 208 99 109 110% 81 559 632 (74) -12% 171 76 78 (2) -2% 82 368 421 (53) -12% 172 148 104 44 42% 86 252 226 27 12% 175 26 28 (2) -9% 87 254 239 14 6% 176 36 33 3 10% 88 196 209 (13) -6% 177 106 91 15 16% 93 209 251 (42) -17% 205 32 29 3 12% 206 24 28 (4) -15% 210 42 42 0 0% Please note: 211 100 88 11 13% 212 72 53 19 36% Route totals do not add up to monthly totals. Route by Route 214 38 12 26 214% comparisons are only shown for routes that operated in each 227 21 15 6 38% year. Additionally special service routes are not included on 228 34 16 19 118% this page. 246 46 43 3 7% 248 30 19 11 59% 252 42 29 13 43% 255 43 49 (6) -12% Average Weekday Boardings by Station by Line Station Name Feb19 Feb18 Difference % Change BLUE LINE - Total 18,783 16,400 2,383 14.53% 12TH & I STATION 439 413 27 6.47% 13TH STREET STATION 461 456 6 1.26% 16TH STREET STATION 1,629 1,416 214 15.08% 47TH AVENUE STATION 571 486 84 17.33% 4TH AVE/WAYNE HULTGREN STATION 649 483 166 34.50% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 715 636 79 12.37% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 370 343 27 7.74% 8TH & O STATION 733 673 60 8.94% ALKALI FLAT/LA VALENTINA STA 711 606 105 17.35% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 498 451 47 10.47% ARDEN/DEL PASO STATION 761 692 69 9.98% BROADWAY STATION 653 576 77 13.35% CATHEDRAL SQUARE STATION 755 685 70 10.25% CENTER PARKWAY STATION 265 233 32 13.84% CITY COLLEGE STATION 1,055 804 251 31.22% CRC STATION 1,393 1,153 240 20.84% FLORIN STATION 885 787 98 12.50% FRANKLIN STATION 636 618 18 2.96% FRUITRIDGE STATION 464 396 68 17.23% GLOBE AVENUE STATION 262 229 34 14.68% MARCONI/ARCADE STATION 699 616 83 13.51% MEADOWVIEW STATION 895 781 114 14.63% ROSEVILLE ROAD STATION 640 561 79 14.07% ROYAL OAKS STATION 374 347 27 7.68% ST ROSE OF LIMA PARK STATION 595 527 68 12.87% SWANSTON STATION 250 218 32 14.72% Watt/I-80 Station 1,200 1,032 168 16.26% WATT/I-80 WEST STATION 141 120 21 17.38% GOLD LINE - Total 17,481 18,700 (1,219) -6.52% 13TH STREET STATION 613 687 (74) -10.76% 16TH STREET STATION 1,704 1,781 (77) -4.34% 23RD STREET STATION 509 531 (22) -4.16% 29TH STREET STATION 1,383 1,501 (118) -7.84% 39TH STREET STATION 261 290 (29) -10.04% 48TH STREET STATION 222 242 (20) -8.46% 59TH STREET STATION 259 270 (11) -4.24% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 890 986 (95) -9.68% 7TH & I/COUNTY CENTER STATION 346 375 (29) -7.68% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 63 59 4 7.35% 8TH & H STATION 70 81 (11) -13.48% 8TH & K STATION 84 84 (0) -0.15% 8TH & O STATION 737 792 (55) -6.89% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 632 641 (9) -1.40% BUTTERFIELD STATION 550 561 (11) -1.92% COLLEGE GREENS STATION 623 669 (46) -6.83% CORDOVA TOWN CENTER STATION 460 490 (30) -6.08% GLENN STATION 256 268 (12) -4.49% HAZEL STATION 161 176 (15) -8.55% HISTORIC FOLSOM STATION 470 513 (43) -8.37% IRON POINT STATION 410 472 (63) -13.26% MATHER FIELD/MILLS STATION 1,251 1,391 (140) -10.08% POWER INN STATION 493 545 (52) -9.57% SACRAMENTO VALLEY STATION 559 532 27 5.08% STARFIRE STATION 288 313 (25) -7.89% SUNRISE STATION 769 854 (85) -9.97% TIBER STATION 277 300 (23) -7.81% UNIVERSITY/65TH STREET STATION 1,416 1,444 (28) -1.92% WATT/MANLOVE STATION 981 1,043 (62) -5.99% ZINFANDEL STATION 731 796 (65) -8.21% GREEN LINE - Total 316 390 (74) -19.03% 13TH STREET STATION 71 90 (19) -21.02% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 17 25 (8) -31.60% 7TH & I/COUNTY CENTER STATION 17 24 (7) -30.05% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 14 18 (4) -21.12% 8TH & K STATION 57 48 9 19.59% 8TH & O STATION 18 22 (4) -18.11% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 21 25 (4) -16.28% TOWNSHIP 9 STATION 101 139 (38) -27.17% All Stations 36,580 35,490 1,090 3.07% Average Weekday Alightings by Station by Line Station Name Feb19 Feb18 Difference % Change BLUE LINE - Rt#533 18,522 17,448 1,074 6.15% 12TH & I STATION 482 466 16 3.41% 13TH STREET STATION 502 508 (6) -1.22% 16TH STREET STATION 1,657 1,554 103 6.61% 47TH AVENUE STATION 617 534 82 15.42% 4TH AVE/WAYNE HULTGREN STATION 517 420 97 23.07% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 628 600 28 4.67% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 477 459 18 3.82% 8TH & O STATION 685 659 26 3.98% ALKALI FLAT/LA VALENTINA STATION 684 647 37 5.64% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 453 446 7 1.60% ARDEN/DEL PASO STATION 791 776 16 2.04% BROADWAY STATION 673 637 36 5.62% CATHEDRAL SQUARE STATION 780 770 11 1.36% CENTER PARKWAY STATION 215 200 15 7.48% CITY COLLEGE STATION 1,075 789 286 36.20% CRC STATION 1,449 1,296 153 11.79% FLORIN STATION 883 848 36 4.23% FRANKLIN STATION 609 635 (26) -4.08% FRUITRIDGE STATION 472 421 51 12.20% GLOBE AVENUE STATION 247 255 (8) -3.22% MARCONI/ARCADE STATION 657 634 24 3.72% MEADOWVIEW STATION 880 828 52 6.27% ROSEVILLE ROAD STATION 594 612 (18) -2.94% ROYAL OAKS STATION 356 375 (19) -5.16% ST ROSE OF LIMA PARK STATION 468 477 (9) -1.84% SWANSTON STATION 251 239 12 4.98% Watt/I-80 Station 1,213 1,164 48 4.16% WATT/I-80 WEST STATION 135 131 4 3.10% GOLD LINE - Rt#507 17,520 17,516 5 0.03% 13TH STREET STATION 516 533 (16) -3.07% 16TH STREET STATION 1,698 1,684 14 0.81% 23RD STREET STATION 494 486 7 1.49% 29TH STREET STATION 1,350 1,379 (29) -2.11% 39TH STREET STATION 268 265 2 0.86% 48TH STREET STATION 226 245 (18) -7.50% 59TH STREET STATION 274 269 5 1.96% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 66 58 9 14.86% 7TH & I/COUNTY CENTER STATION 39 26 14 52.67% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 643 673 (31) -4.56% 8TH & H STATION 316 341 (25) -7.31% 8TH & K STATION 687 665 21 3.20% 8TH & O STATION 641 648 (7) -1.09% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 602 612 (9) -1.54% BUTTERFIELD STATION 517 510 8 1.50% COLLEGE GREENS STATION 608 603 5 0.78% CORDOVA TOWN CENTER STATION 435 429 6 1.38% GLENN STATION 249 239 9 3.89% HAZEL STATION 154 158 (5) -2.90% HISTORIC FOLSOM STATION 460 475 (16) -3.30% IRON POINT STATION 411 428 (16) -3.77% MATHER FIELD/MILLS STATION 1,250 1,244 6 0.45% POWER INN STATION 481 503 (22) -4.27% SACRAMENTO VALLEY STATION 441 429 12 2.80% SACRAMENTO VALLEY STATION 196 236 (40) -16.89% STARFIRE STATION 259 259 (0) -0.06% SUNRISE STATION 740 773 (33) -4.26% TIBER STATION 266 270 (3) -1.22% UNIVERSITY/65TH STREET STATION 1,499 1,350 148 10.99% WATT/MANLOVE STATION 987 967 20 2.09% ZINFANDEL STATION 743 756 (13) -1.75% GREEN LINE
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California
    Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California Hollie M. Lund, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Robert Cervero, Ph.D. Professor of City and Regional Planning University of California at Berkeley Richard W. Willson, Ph.D., AICP Professor of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Final Report January 2004 Funded by Caltrans Transportation Grant—“Statewide Planning Studies”—FTA Section 5313 (b) Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Acknowledgements This study was a collaborative effort by a team of researchers, practitioners and graduate students. We would like to thank all members involved for their efforts and suggestions. Project Team Members: Hollie M. Lund, Principle Investigator (California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) Robert Cervero, Research Collaborator (University of California at Berkeley) Richard W. Willson, Research Collaborator (California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) Marian Lee-Skowronek, Project Manager (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit) Anthony Foster, Research Associate David Levitan, Research Associate Sally Librera, Research Associate Jody Littlehales, Research Associate Technical Advisory Committee Members: Emmanuel Mekwunye, State of California Department of Transportation, District 4 Val Menotti, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, Planning Department Jeff Ordway, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, Real Estate Department Chuck Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Doug Sibley, State of California Department of Transportation, District 4 Research Firms: Corey, Canapary & Galanis, San Francisco, California MARI Hispanic Field Services, Santa Ana, California Taylor Research, San Diego, California i Travel Characteristics of TOD in California ii Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Executive Summary Rapid growth in the urbanized areas of California presents many transportation and land use challenges for local and regional policy makers.
    [Show full text]
  • Sac County Folsom Blvd Butterfi
    Applicant: Sacramento County Department of Transportation Project: Butterfield Way @ Folsom Blvd Intersection Bike Lanes P. PROJECT APPLICATION Project Title Butterfield Way @ Folsom Blvd Intersection Bike Lanes SACOG ID number (if available) 30433 PPNO and/or EA number (if applicable) N/A Federal ID number (if applicable) N/A Responsible Project Manager/Contact Name: Ron Vicari II, P.E. Position: Principle Civil Engineer Address: 906 G Street, Suite 510, Sacramento CA 95814 Phone: (916) 874-5164 desk, (916) 591-2257 cell E-mail: [email protected] Co-sponsor/Partner Agencies N/A Project Location In Rosemont at the intersection of Butterfield (Also attach a map) Way and Folsom Boulevard adjacent to the Butterfield light rail station and the Franchise Tax Board. (See Context Map) Project Scope/ Description (250 word limit) Modify the intersection at Butterfield and Folsom to eliminate the barrier presented by a high voltage steel power pole between Folsom Blvd and the light rail right-of-way and extend the bike lanes to the crosswalks and stop bars on Folsom Blvd. The proposed modification will reconfigure the traffic lanes and medians to accommodate bike lanes on the Folsom Blvd approaches and departures to the intersection with Butterfield within existing right-of-way. This can be accomplished by removing one of the two westbound left turn lanes on Folsom Blvd, increasing the length of the remaining left turn lane, and optimizing the signal timing for the improved intersection geometry. Project Schedule (estimated month and year): 1. Start environmental/preliminary engineering 1. Environmental process is underway, 2. Final ED approved - Start preliminary engineering is complete engineering/design 2.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan
    CITY OF ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of Governments Prepared For: City of Elk Grove ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of City of Elk Grove Governments 1415 L Street, Suite RAQUEL CHAVARRIA, TRANSIT PLANNER 300 EDWARD COVIELLO, TRANSIT PLANNER Sacramento, CA 95814 JEAN C. FOLETTA, TRANSIT MANAGER Tel: 916.321.9000 Fax: 916.321.9551 BETH MARASIGAN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT www.sacog.org KARA REDDIG, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER RICHARD SHEPARD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Prepared for: City of Elk Grove Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 8401 Laguna Palms Way SHARON SPROWLS, SENIOR PROGRAM SPECIALIST (PROJECT MANAGER) Elk Grove, CA 95758 LAURA BELL, ASSISTANT RESEARCH ANALYST VICTORIA CACCIATORE, PLANNING ANALYST RENÉE DEVERE-OKI, SENIOR PLANNER TINA GLOVER, ASSOCIATE RESEARCH ANALYST GAYLE GREENE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III CLINT HOLTZEN, ASSISTANT PLANNER AMY MARTIN, TRANSIT PLANNING INTERN CHRISTINE O’ROURKE, ASSISTANT PLANNER GARY TAYLOR, SENIOR PLANNER BARBARA VAUGHANBECHTOLD, ASSOCIATE PLANNER THIS SRTP WAS COMPLETED AS PROJECT #14-003-17 OF THE SACOG OVERALL WORK PROGRAM (OWP) WITH GENEROUS FUNDING PROVIDED BY CALTRANS THROUGH THE STATEWIDE OR URBAN TRANSIT PLANNING STUDIES GRANT PROGRAM. City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page i ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ES-1 Chapter 1—Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Ridership Report (October 2019)
    Ridership Report (October 2019) Year to Date Summary Category FY20 YTD FY19YTD Difference % Change Trailing 12 Month Trend Bus 3,518,921 3,415,852 103,069 3.0% 11,500,000 Light Rail 3,848,176 3,641,112 207,064 5.7% Rail Bus System Total 7,367,097 7,056,964 310,133 4.4% 11,000,000 10,500,000 Current Month Summary 10,000,000 Category October 2019 October 2018 Difference % Change Bus 1,059,668 1,014,352 45,316 4.5% 9,500,000 Light Rail 1,063,740 1,025,613 38,127 3.7% System Total 2,123,408 2,039,965 83,443 4.1% 9,000,000 Daily Summary Category October 2019 October 2018 Difference % Change Bus (M-F) 41,415 40,275 1,140 2.8% Bus (Sat) 15,390 13,266 2,124 16.0% Bus (Sun) 10,371 7,915 2,456 31.0% October Ridership by Mode Light Rail (M-F) 40,939 40,510 429 1.1% 6% Light Rail (Sat) 17,127 13,500 3,627 26.9% Light Rail Light Rail (Sun) 12,229 9,500 2,729 28.7% Fixed Route 48% Other Services E-Tran Ridership Summary (E-Van included) 46% Category Current Year Prior Year Difference % Change E-Tran (YTD) 280,319 266,440 13,879 5.2% E-Tran (Monthly) 84,775 81,648 3,127 3.8% Other services include E-Tran, Folsom, SmaRT Ride, CBS and Special Services E-Tran (Weekday) 3,560 3,426 134 3.9% Route Level Ridership Comparison (Bus) Weelday Route Comparison Saturday Route Comparison Route Oct 2019 Oct 2018 Difference % Change Route Oct 2019 Oct 2018 Difference % Change 1 2,067 2,190 (124) -6% 1 768 777 (9) -1% 11 972 715 257 36% 11 447 282 165 59% 13 678 315 362 115% 13 426 - 426 15 795 1,215 (420) -35% 15 381 558 (176) -32% 19 423 658 (234) -36% 19 209 271
    [Show full text]
  • City of Sacramento
    CITY OF SACRAMENTO LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LAND USE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES April 2005 Prepared by Planning Division Long Range Planning Section Development Services Department Todd Leon, Project Manager Jim McDonald AICP, Senior Planner Stacia Cosgrove, Associate Planner Christopher Jordan, Student Assistant Nathan Stephens, Student Assistant http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/plngserv/lngrng/policies.htm TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................I I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 II. CITY OF SACRAMENTO GENERAL PLAN...........................................................................5 SECTION 1: POLICIES........................................................................................................7 SECTION 2: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ELEMENT.........................................................12 SECTION 4: COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY LAND USE ELEMENT ...............................15 SECTION 5: CIRCULATION ELEMENT............................................................................20 III. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANS .............................................................................................25 A. REGIONAL TRANSIT MASTER PLAN (1993) ............................................................26 B. REGIONAL TRANSIT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BUS AND LIGHT RAIL FACILITIES...............................................................................................................33
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 Prepared By: Sacramento Area Council of Governments
    CITY OF ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of Governments Prepared For: City of Elk Grove ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of City of Elk Grove Governments 1415 L Street, Suite RAQUEL CHAVARRIA, TRANSIT PLANNER 300 EDWARD COVIELLO, TRANSIT PLANNER Sacramento, CA 95814 JEAN C. FOLETTA, TRANSIT MANAGER Tel: 916.321.9000 Fax: 916.321.9551 BETH MARASIGAN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT www.sacog.org KARA REDDIG, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER RICHARD SHEPARD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Prepared for: City of Elk Grove Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 8401 Laguna Palms Way SHARON SPROWLS, SENIOR PROGRAM SPECIALIST (PROJECT MANAGER) Elk Grove, CA 95758 LAURA BELL, ASSISTANT RESEARCH ANALYST VICTORIA CACCIATORE, PLANNING ANALYST RENÉE DEVERE-OKI, SENIOR PLANNER TINA GLOVER, ASSOCIATE RESEARCH ANALYST GAYLE GREENE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III CLINT HOLTZEN, ASSISTANT PLANNER AMY MARTIN, TRANSIT PLANNING INTERN CHRISTINE O’ROURKE, ASSISTANT PLANNER GARY TAYLOR, SENIOR PLANNER BARBARA VAUGHANBECHTOLD, ASSOCIATE PLANNER THIS SRTP WAS COMPLETED AS PROJECT #14-003-17 OF THE SACOG OVERALL WORK PROGRAM (OWP) WITH GENEROUS FUNDING PROVIDED BY CALTRANS THROUGH THE STATEWIDE OR URBAN TRANSIT PLANNING STUDIES GRANT PROGRAM. City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page i ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ES-1 Chapter 1—Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Handout 1 Item #15-4-3
    Handout 1 Item #15-4-3 Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan Update Since the Master Plan was sent to the Committee, staff received additional feedback from the City of Roseville, Sacramento Regional Transit District, and Caltrans District 3. Staff has incorporated this feedback into the attached changes. These attachments, as described below, include three additional projects; consolidation of Caltrans District 3 projects into the multi-agency project lists for each of the six counties, including identification of project co-sponsors; consolidation of Sacramento Regional Transit District projects into City and County of Sacramento project lists; and an additional map. • Exhibit A replaces page two of the City of Roseville’s project list. Two new projects have been added (highlighted) • Exhibit B combines the El Dorado County Multi-Agency and Caltrans District 3 project lists into one El Dorado County: Multi-Agency List. • Exhibit C combines the Placer County Multi-Agency and Caltrans District 3 project lists into one Placer County: Multi-Agency List. • Exhibit D replaces page 5 of the City of Sacramento’s project list to incorporate projects previously listed under Sacramento Regional Transit District (highlighted). • Exhibit E replaces page 13 of Sacramento County’s project list to incorporate projects previously listed under Sacramento Regional Transit District (highlighted). • Exhibit F combines the Sacramento County Multi-Agency and Caltrans District 3 project lists into one Sacramento County: Multi-Agency List. • Exhibit G combines the Sutter County Multi-Agency and Caltrans District 3 project lists into one Sutter County: Multi-Agency List. • Exhibit H combines the Yolo County Multi-Agency and Caltrans District 3 project lists into one Yolo County: Multi-Agency List.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting Sacramento: a Trip-Making and Accessibility Study
    Connecting Sacramento: A Trip-Making and Accessibility Study Study Overview and Highlights July 2017 Purpose of this study Local governments and transportation agencies often make challenging decisions about how best to use their limited resources to ensure they are meeting people’s travel needs. These decisions typically depend on reliable data and metrics, which help explain where issues exist, come up with logical solutions, evaluate of the impacts of potential projects, and weigh the relative benefits of different options. Decision-makers have long relied on a limited set of tools. Facility-level metrics such as road delay and on-time transit arrival provide some sense of how well different pieces of a transportation system are performing; costly travel surveys shed light on people’s actual travel behaviors; and travel demand models let us simulate travel patterns throughout a region and forecast travel behavior into the future. Unfortunately, these tools fall short in easily answering fundamental transportation-related questions: where are people going and how easily can they get there? This is particularly true regarding transit riders and potential transit users. Newer data sources and more advanced analytic tools can potentially change that drastically, but they are not well understood and rarely applied in practice. This study incorporates several of those new tools and data sources to understand how useful they are and how they can inform smarter transportation investments and more impactful improvements – particularly related to improving people’s access to existing transit and increasing transit ridership. Novel tools and data sources Accessibility metrics Accessibility metrics incorporate everything we know about existing transportation networks and land uses to explain how easily people can reach essential destinations by different modes.
    [Show full text]
  • Transitrenewal Draft Report
    TransitRenewal Draft Report Prepared by: Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................. 3 2. RT Market Analysis .................................................. 4 3. Service Analysis ...................................................... 24 4. TransitRenewal Performance Measures ............... 67 5. Public Outreach ...................................................... 73 6. Service Recommendations .................................... 88 Transit Renewal 2010‐2017, Draft Report 1. Introduction The 2011‐2012 Sacramento Regional Transit Comprehensive Operational Analysis, commonly known as “TransitRenewal”, includes a review of existing market conditions and transit service and aims to position the RT network to sustainably meet future transit demand within the service area. Sustainability is the method of using a resource without depleting or gdamagin it for future use. Sustainable transit planning focuses on meeting transit needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet such needs1. TransitRenewal responds to changing economic circumstances and RT’s new financial realities. In 2010, RT implemented substantial service reductions which included discontinuing several bus routes, reducing service levels, and reducing spans. TransitRenewal responds to RT’s plan to regain previous FY 2010 service levels and intends to identify core areas of the RT system where investment will have a maximum benefit, and will guide RT to a more financially sustainable future.
    [Show full text]
  • Ridership Report (August 2019)
    Ridership Report (August 2019) Year to Date Summary Rolling 24 Month Trend Category FY20 YTD FY19YTD Difference % Change 12,000,000 Bus** 1,542,508 1,530,603 11,905 0.8% Rail Bus Light Rail 1,859,238 1,700,126 159,112 9.4% 11,500,000 System Total 3,401,746 3,230,729 171,017 5.3% 11,000,000 10,500,000 Current Month Summary 10,000,000 Category August 2019* August 2018 Difference % Change 9,500,000 Bus** 806,687 815,472 (8,785) -1.1% 9,000,000 Light Rail 946,115 927,742 18,373 2.0% Jul18 Jul19 Jan18 System Total 1,752,802 1,743,214 9,588 0.6% Jan19 Sep17 Sep18 Nov17 Nov18 Mar18 Mar19 May18 May19 *August 2019 had 1 less weekday than August 2018. Accounts for approximately 2.3% reduction in ridership Daily Summary August Ridership by Mode 2% Category August 2019 August 2018 Difference % Change Bus (M-F) 32,379 32,138 241 0.7% Light Rail Bus (Sat) 12,425 11,499 927 8.1% Fixed Route Bus (Sun) 7,578 7,404 174 2.4% 44% Other Services 54% Light Rail (M-F) 37,374 36,330 1,044 2.9% Light Rail (Sat) 15,940 13,300 2,640 19.8% Light Rail (Sun) 10,994 9,600 1,394 14.5% Etran services will be included in the summary next month. August ridership was flat. **Bus includes Fixed Route, CBS, SmaRT Ride, Folsom Fixed Route, Folsom DAR and other special services, Folsom ridership not complete.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Triennial On-Site Safety and Security Review Sacramento Regional Transit District (Srtd)
    CPSD/RTSS/RDW/vdl/mc1 Mailed 9/24/08 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Consumer Protection and Safety Division Resolution ST-99 Rail Transit Safety Section September 18, 2008 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION ST-99 GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL REPORT ON THE 2008 SAFETY & SECURITY REVIEW OF THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT (SRTD) Summary This resolution approves the Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD) final audit report titled, "Triennial On-Site Safety & Security Review of the Sacramento Regional Transit District," dated August 14, 2008. SRTD is ordered to implement the recommendations contained in the report and to provide monthly progress reports. Background Commission General Order No. 164-D, "Rules and Regulations Governing State Safety Oversight of Rail Fixed Guideway Systems" requires staff to conduct on-site safety reviews of transit agencies operating Rail Fixed Guideway Systems at least once every three years. The Rail Transit Safety Section (RTSS) conducted an on-site safety and security review of SRTD beginning April 7 and concluding April 11, 2008. Staff conducted a post-audit exit conference with SRTD management on Monday, April 28, 2008. The methods used to conduct the audit included: a. Interviews with SRTD employees at all levels from rank and file through SRTD management; b. Reviews of design, construction, procurement, testing, training, operation and maintenance programs; c. Reviews of records and procedures; d. Observation of operations and maintenance activities; and e. Inspections of equipment and facilities. 352706 - 1 - CPSD/RTSS/RDW/vdl/mc1 Resolution ST-99 September 18, 2008 A full description of the audit, including the scope, results, and recommendations, is contained in the final audit report which is attached to this resolution as Attachment A.
    [Show full text]
  • Ridership Report (January 2020)
    Ridership Report (January 2020) FY20 Year to Date Summary Category FY20 YTD FY19 YTD Difference % Change Trailing 12 Month Trend Bus 6,172,715 5,812,472 360,242 6.2% 11,500,000 Light Rail 6,538,014 6,185,385 352,629 5.7% Rail Bus System Total 12,710,729 11,997,857 712,871 5.9% 11,000,000 10,500,000 Current Month Summary 10,000,000 Category January 2020 January 2019 Difference % Change Bus 909,004 813,453 95,551 11.7% 9,500,000 Light Rail 907,018 890,563 16,455 1.8% System Total 1,816,022 1,704,016 112,006 6.6% 9,000,000 Daily Summary Category January 2020 January 2019 Difference % Change Bus (M-F) 37,527 34,044 3,483 10.2% Bus (Sat) 14,597 11,369 3,228 28.4% Bus (Sun) 10,265 7,098 3,167 44.6% January Ridership by Mode Light Rail (M-F) 37,016 35,860 1,156 3.2% 6% Light Rail (Sat) 15,361 16,400 (1,039) -6.3% Light Rail Light Rail (Sun) 10,869 11,400 (531) -4.7% Fixed Route 49% Other Services 45% E-Tran Ridership Summary (E-Van included) Category Current Year Prior Year Difference % Change E-Tran (YTD) 466,820 439,796 27,024 6.1% Other services include E-Tran, Folsom, SmaRT Ride, CBS E-Tran (Monthly) 65,292 57,380 7,912 13.8% and Special Services E-Tran (Weekday) 2,996 2,613 383 14.7% Route Level Ridership Comparison (Bus) Weekday Route Comparison Saturday Route Comparison Route Jan 2020 Jan 2019 Difference % Change Route Jan 2020 Jan 2019 Difference % Change 1 1,651 1,562 89 6% 1 700 774 (74) -10% 11 929 589 340 58% 11 452 265 187 70% 13 716 240 476 199% 13 464 - 464 15 737 1,042 (305) -29% 15 410 494 (84) -17% 19 364 581 (217) -37% 19
    [Show full text]